High impact philanthropy is the practice of making charitable contributions with the intention of maximizing social good. The aim is to make the biggest difference possible given the amount of capital invested. Philanthropists who give in this way are less interested that their dollars go to a particular organization and more concerned that what they invest yields a result in an area of particular interest to them.
Very clear and well articulated viewpoint. The page contains links to excellent resources. See also this case study of high impact philanthropy in powerpoint at Slideshare. What might be the contrasting terms? Low impact philanthropy? Giving when asked? Honored obligations (giving to orgs with whom you have a personal connection)? How about social change philanthropy? Or grassroots giving? How about philanthropy as libation, propitiation, self-expression, ritual act in community with others, as opposed to "social investing of capital to yield results of interest to the investor"? In other words what is lost when we recode a gesture (giving) that predates not only money, but articulate speech, in terms drawn wholly from Wharton or Harvard Biz school? In the passage above, utterly transparent, limpid, and convincing we have a microcosm of America's best mind's under capitalism. That the best minds have read so little outside of Biz School is both shocking and tragic. "Social results of interest to them." Of interest to these Wizards of Finance? What might bring them to their knees in prayer, or in beseeching forgiveness of their betters (the poets and prophets, the social activists, the low impact, self-sacrificing visionaries?) What is the intended response to a passage like the one above from the ordinary schmoes who must live deep in the bowels of the organizations these Social Capitalists rule with such untroubled self-assurance, within only one vocabulary for all seasons and sectors, that of bidnis as usual? Should we the low impact shmoes raise a feeble hurrah as the Social Investor's Escalade passes among us? Thank you, boss, for the good you done us!
Still, we who need the money from these Social Investors will catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. If the giver's amour propre demands that he or she be interpellated as an investor, let's package social change philanthropy as the next best thing to a basket of subprime loans whose value can only increase when properly managed by an MBA, pending systemic collapse.